Herbie555: MightyPez: You made a bad argument. Don't call other people trolls for calling you on it. You wanted to call it "moral theft." How about we just prosecute copyright infringement under the laws we already have for it (which, by the way, are for more strict than laws against theft) rather than create a new "moral theft" law?

Reread my original post. I wasn't trying to "legislate morality", I was lamenting the fact that even the English language didn't really have a properly descriptive word for "getting stuff for free, even if nobody loses anything".

See my last post about copyright law - I would LOVE if copyright infringement could be properly prosecuted, but the Law has not yet caught up to the "value" of software. If you copyright a book or some other written work that can have a price fixed to it, that's one thing. Heck, even software that is "sold" as software can have a value affixed, albiet that's a bit more murky.

When shall copyright expire?

casual disregard: Herbie555: MightyPez: You made a bad argument. Don't call other people trolls for calling you on it. You wanted to call it "moral theft." How about we just prosecute copyright infringement under the laws we already have for it (which, by the way, are for more strict than laws against theft) rather than create a new "moral theft" law?

Reread my original post. I wasn't trying to "legislate morality", I was lamenting the fact that even the English language didn't really have a properly descriptive word for "getting stuff for free, even if nobody loses anything".

See my last post about copyright law - I would LOVE if copyright infringement could be properly prosecuted, but the Law has not yet caught up to the "value" of software. If you copyright a book or some other written work that can have a price fixed to it, that's one thing. Heck, even software that is "sold" as software can have a value affixed, albiet that's a bit more murky.

When shall copyright expire?

Should be 20 years.

Reality is they'll never let Mickey Mouse expire.

pute kisses like a man: beefoe: the guy was quitting Goldman and going to work for a competitor who was going to pay him $1 million per year to build a new trading system for them and the project was only supposed to take six months vs. the typical multi-year development cycle for similar products.

this is what happens when a company man runs between the shadows of the mega-corps:

[www.battlecorps.com image 220x295]

/ his legal troubles are far from over.

God, what I would give for a fun, modern, non-grindy Shadowrun (mmo)RPG.

/$14.99 a month

Most Farkers are overlooking the portion of the article that notes that this is not a theft, or a violation of the Electronic Espionage Act only. The court didn't address any other statutes.

The criminal penalties for downloading and/or distributing music, videos and other electronic format content may still be illegal as a result of legislation that makes those specific acts illegal, that do not apply in this case.

Another thing worth mentioning is the court noted the program in question was "was not designed to enter or pass in commerce, or to make something that does". For a federal court to have jurisdiction there must be some form of interstate or foreign commerce. While the courts have generally read this liberally, (fed jurisdiction when you rob someone with a gun produced in another state) there still must be some type of interstate or foreign commerce to violate a federal law. So why a program designed for a companies internal use, that was not distributed in interstate or foreign commerce, may fall outside of the law, that mp3, video or copy of MS Office, will likely fall within the jurisdiction of the federal court.

We are in the process of trying to reconfigure ownership ideas and laws that were formed before digital copies became possible.

The issue the court decided was that the owner wasn't dispossessed of the original.

While the record industry tries to cling to an outmoded idea of tangible assets, more sophisticated creatives have realized that the issue is not so black and white.

This is a wall in my lounge



The original of the triple painting is called As I Opened Fire and resides in a public art gallery in Amsterdam.

I would say that the existence of this 'copy' in no way reduces the value of the real thing. Even if I sold the copy, it is so obviously fake that it doesn't reduce the value of the real thing.

To me, this is morally legit, in that nobody is being deprived of anything.

Please. They're called undocumented downloaders, and they have feelings just like you and me.

Herbie555: namegoeshere: But by that argument, if I record myself playing stairway to heaven for my own enjoyment, write down a passage of my favorite book in my journal, or copy a painting to hang in my own livingroom, I am a moral thief.

I would strongly disagree.

If the defendant in this case had taken the time to code (from scratch) a software tool that had done the exact same thing as the software he copied, I wouldn't feel he'd done anything wrong - moral or otherwise.

Nobody codes "from scratch." Not unless they're stupid.

Everybody "steals" standard code, the classic example being search algorithms. Efficient programmers re-use as much code as possible.

Good, efficient programmers make sure the wild herds of kangaroos don't shoot at the helicopters in the simulations. [grin]

That said, there's a difference between wholesale recycling of code in new projects versus swiping a competitor's proprietary source code and slapping it onto or into your products so you don't have to do your own engineering and development.

Reality: Programmers swap blocks of code like fratboys and coeds swapping spit (and other miscellaneous fluids) at a Greek Week kegger. The morning after, nobody inquires too closely as to whose bits of whatnot got into or onto who else as long as no active competitors' property rights were directly infringed (in some way they feel they cannot ignore).

GAT_00: WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: That is a seriously dangerous precedent.

No, it just kicks it back to being a civil matter of copyright infringement. Which is all it should ever be.

But it says that stealing it isn't a crime. So, if you were to steal the entire code for whatever program, but break no other laws and attempt to make no profit from it, then you haven't committed a crime. Is that what it says, because that's how I read it.

It says if you were to COPY the code for something, that you have not committed a criminal act. However, you may have still committed a civil tort. Even if you make no profit from something, you may be committing the tort of copyright infringement. Copyright is the right to copy, and that is what's in question here.

Satanic_Hamster:
What the court is saying:
You download/pirate a copy of Mass Effect 3 and play it. Maybe email it to a few people.

You can still be sued in a civil court for piracy. But you can NOT be charged *criminally* by the *government* and go to *jail* for it.

That's really not what they are saying. The guy took raw code, not actual software. He didn't steal media, which is generally intended for the public, instead it's almost exactly analogous to stealing blueprints from an engineering firm or a formula from a chemistry/pharmaceutical firm.

I'm not a corporate espionage lawyer, but something tells me that if you snap a picture of an under-development blueprint your company is working on and walk out of the building with it, you will get busted for theft. The only difference between that situation and this one is that the judges aren't able to differentiate media from schematics.

So, it is OK to steal someone's identity because, "cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good"?

:-D

The judge has the semi-bogus argument in his opinion that since something can't be "placed in" commerce without having been "produced for" commerce, then the wording is vague and can't be enforced. Any rational reading of the rule recognizes that the "or" is related to the fact that something can be "produced for" but not "placed in" commerce. I hope the government appeals this since it will be overturned.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation... Actually, the judge noted that a different section of the EEA would apply, but for some reason, Aleynikov wasn't charged with that section:
The EEA contains two operative provisions. The first
8 section (18 U.S.C. § 1831(a)), which is not charged in the
9 indictment, applies to foreign espionage and is expressed
10 broadly: "Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense
11 will benefit any foreign government, foreign
12 instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly . . . without
13 authorization . . . downloads, uploads, . . . transmits,
14 . . . or conveys a trade secret" is guilty of a federal
15 offense, and may be imprisoned for up to 15 years. 18
16 U.S.C. § 1831(a).
17 Aleynikov, however, was charged with violating 18
18 U.S.C. § 1832...

Basically, I think the prosecutor screwed up there.

I don't completely disagree with you and think that the govt seems to have done a crappy job with the appeal, but the other section of the law the prosecution used and trial court convicted under, seems much to apply much more directly. The section you and the judge quote refer to foreign entities and agents and the company he was going to work for was as US company. i don't know what he appeals judge was trying to prove, except perhaps establish some new precedent, and I don't think it would be a stretch to think that the prosecution wasn't prepared for this particular line of reasoning.

Well I'm glad that's settled.

GAT_00: WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: That is a seriously dangerous precedent.

No, it just kicks it back to being a civil matter of copyright infringement. Which is all it should ever be.

But it says that stealing it isn't a crime. So, if you were to steal the entire code for whatever program, but break no other laws and attempt to make no profit from it, then you haven't committed a crime. Is that what it says, because that's how I read it.

As the court says, stealing and IP infringement are two separate things. You can steal a CD. You can not steal a digital file, or code.

It's a rather simple legal concept that the RIAA and MPAA have wanted to confuse people on for a long time. Stealing involves depriving someone of an object. Copying code or data does no such thing.

This is actually how it's supposed to work.

Hopefully next up they take a look at RIAA/MPAA math.

mjjt: We are in the process of trying to reconfigure ownership ideas and laws that were formed before digital copies became possible.

The issue the court decided was that the owner wasn't dispossessed of the original.

While the record industry tries to cling to an outmoded idea of tangible assets, more sophisticated creatives have realized that the issue is not so black and white.

This is a wall in my lounge

[i40.tinypic.com image 640x479]

The original of the triple painting is called As I Opened Fire and resides in a public art gallery in Amsterdam.

I would say that the existence of this 'copy' in no way reduces the value of the real thing. Even if I sold the copy, it is so obviously fake that it doesn't reduce the value of the real thing.

To me, this is morally legit, in that nobody is being deprived of anything.

Which is funny as different runs of things meant to be reproduced like books, various forms of music albums, and posters sometimes vary greatly in monetary value between edition.

Gleeman: Obligatory?

I prefer this one.



// whoever thought up unskippable previews needs to be taken out back and shot.

mjjt: We are in the process of trying to reconfigure ownership ideas and laws that were formed before digital copies became possible.

The issue the court decided was that the owner wasn't dispossessed of the original.

While the record industry tries to cling to an outmoded idea of tangible assets, more sophisticated creatives have realized that the issue is not so black and white.

This is a wall in my lounge

[i40.tinypic.com image 640x479]

The original of the triple painting is called As I Opened Fire and resides in a public art gallery in Amsterdam.

I would say that the existence of this 'copy' in no way reduces the value of the real thing. Even if I sold the copy, it is so obviously fake that it doesn't reduce the value of the real thing.

To me, this is morally legit, in that nobody is being deprived of anything.

The original was in Phoenix for a while. Went and saw it myself. Hand-painted half tone eh?

Did they mention that is also a piss poor product because anybody *can* "steal" it? Or that trying to protect code with other code is like trying to keep a fish fresh by putting it inside of another fish? Binary. Whatever you want it to be™

Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm no lawyer, but after reading that it seems that they are denying the existence of IP.

Sounds like they are saying just because we copying the files, we are not stealing because they have not been deprived of the original.

Ahh so many torrents, building a 10TB disk array is looking like a good investment.

Herbie555: Once our common customers figured out what had been done, they stopped buying from the ODM. Although sadly not for reasons of good conduct - the customers figured out they were getting no meaningful tech support from a company that hadn't written a single line of code. That's one of the reasons our lost sales are so easy to calculate - we know exactly how many units were sold before the customers got wise. Note that they didn't pull the units from their plants, though. ;-)

If I may make a suggestion: any time any such customer contacts your company, offer them a deal: they can get full technical support from you, immunity from legal action for buying and/or possessing a pirated product, and in all ways be treated as if they had bought the product from you directly, and all they have to do is pay you a one-time fee that is at least thrice what they "saved" by getting it from the ODM, or twice the retail price, whichever is greater. Plus any standard support contract, of course.

Incentive. :-)


12349876: casual disregard: Herbie555: MightyPez: You made a bad argument. Don't call other people trolls for calling you on it. You wanted to call it "moral theft." How about we just prosecute copyright infringement under the laws we already have for it (which, by the way, are for more strict than laws against theft) rather than create a new "moral theft" law?

Reread my original post. I wasn't trying to "legislate morality", I was lamenting the fact that even the English language didn't really have a properly descriptive word for "getting stuff for free, even if nobody loses anything".

See my last post about copyright law - I would LOVE if copyright infringement could be properly prosecuted, but the Law has not yet caught up to the "value" of software. If you copyright a book or some other written work that can have a price fixed to it, that's one thing. Heck, even software that is "sold" as software can have a value affixed, albiet that's a bit more murky.

When shall copyright expire?

Should be 20 years.

Reality is they'll never let Mickey Mouse expire.

The whole purpose of copyright legislation in the past several decades has been to keep Steamboat Willie out of the Public Domain. Ironic indeed since that was itself a parody of a prior work by others, Steamboat Bill.

GAT_00: Humean_Nature: WhyteRaven74: Of course if you haven't used it for commercial purposes, haven't sold it and some other things, that could be tricky depending on exactly what was done.

Exactly. If you're taking a closed-source piece of software and using it in your own homebrew programming for some other project, go nuts. But you can't use that code as the basis for your new game World of Snorecraft and try to sell it without Blizzard climbing straight up your ass.

Yeah, this is what I meant. If you steal it, break no other laws, and then at no point do you release it or try to profit from it, that's legal now?

No.

It means that if you do what you described, they can't charge you with theft. You can still be in violation of the copyright.

And for profit or not for profit is irrelevant.

ensign_noname: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm no lawyer, but after reading that it seems that they are denying the existence of IP.

Sounds like they are saying just because we copying the files, we are not stealing because they have not been deprived of the original.

Ahh so many torrents, building a 10TB disk array is looking like a good investment.

It's true, you're not stealing. But that's like saying punching a baby isn't stealing. True enough, but you're still going to go to jail.

ZeroCorpse: CthulhuCalling: seadoo2006: pxsteel: If you take something that is not yours or you do not have permission from the owner to take - it is called stealing - why is this so hard to understand?

Because you didn't TAKE anything. Try reading the difference between 'take' and 'copy' in the dictionary, please.

[27.media.tumblr.com image 500x420]

But but but... I take a dump, but I'm actually GIVING something! I'm so confused.

I can actually explain this for you!

In the phrases "take a dump" or "take a whiz", the objects are actually verbs, not nouns, in the same way as "take a nap" or "take a break".

When the thing you are 'taking' is an action instead of a thing, then it works differently. You're taking an action, not leaving (or taking) an object.

So when you say "I'm going to take a dump", it's a lot of useless extra words. You could just as easily say "I'm going to dump", just like you could say "I'm going to nap" or "I'm going to whiz.", or "I'm going to break."

English is silly.

Now can you explain why its "the chicken pox", "the measles" or "the hepatitis". As in "that $5 hooker gave me the hepatitis" as opposed to a different disease such as "judging from the the amount of leakage coming out of every orifice, it appears that I've caught ebola".

This is a good thing. I know people spend a lot of time on code, but it changes so much that something from 3 months ago is not useful in many places. having it be illegal opens the doors for companies to charge former employees with theft.
There are civil penalties for selling or having code anyway.

Julie Cochrane: Herbie555: namegoeshere: But by that argument, if I record myself playing stairway to heaven for my own enjoyment, write down a passage of my favorite book in my journal, or copy a painting to hang in my own livingroom, I am a moral thief.

I would strongly disagree.

If the defendant in this case had taken the time to code (from scratch) a software tool that had done the exact same thing as the software he copied, I wouldn't feel he'd done anything wrong - moral or otherwise.

Nobody codes "from scratch." Not unless they're stupid.

Everybody "steals" standard code, the classic example being search algorithms. Efficient programmers re-use as much code as possible.

WTF? Who the fark steals "search algorithms"? WTF does that even mean? If you're not using Lucene or a Google appliance, you're a farking moron.

MugzyBrown: Yeah, this is what I meant. If you steal it, break no other laws, and then at no point do you release it or try to profit from it, that's legal now?

Why should it be illegal? Stealing code does not affect anybody else's property or life.

It's like saying performing a cover song should be illegal.

ensign_noname: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm no lawyer, but after reading that it seems that they are denying the existence of IP.

Sounds like they are saying just because we copying the files, we are not stealing because they have not been deprived of the original.

Ahh so many torrents, building a 10TB disk array is looking like a good investment.

So, if I write a book on Word that I intend to sell, and someone copies it from my hard drive (sans authorization), publishes it, etc, this is not depriving me of something?

Satanic_Hamster:
What the court is saying:
You download/pirate a copy of Mass Effect 3 and play it. Maybe email it to a few people.

You can still be sued in a civil court for piracy. But you can NOT be charged *criminally* by the *government* and go to *jail* for it.

You can still go to jail for up to 5 years under the NET act, if you mail it to enough people that you distribute $1000 worth of retail value within a period of 180 days. There are some acts of copyright infringement that are criminal offenses, even if you don't do so for commercial gain.

Herbie555: Bad_Seed: Herbie555: the firmware is worthless without the hardware

Yet you still want damages because somebody copied your worthless firmware.

Well played.

I feel for ya. You're not going to make any headway with the average Farker. Most are just poking your ribs, trolling you, and the rest, I have no idea what the fark they do, but I seriously think most of them are actually the basement-dwelling stereotype personified.

Leeds: void main ( void )
{

long loop_variable;

for(loop_variable = 0; loop_variable {
printf("What the fark, 2nd Circuit Appeals Court??? \n");
}

}

}

Studying for a C++ exam and saw this; was afraid I'd finally cracked.

/Which I suppose is the first step to becoming a programmer

rev. dave: This is a good thing. I know people spend a lot of time on code, but it changes so much that something from 3 months ago is not useful in many places. having it be illegal opens the doors for companies to charge former employees with theft.
There are civil penalties for selling or having code anyway.

It is illegal, and you could still go to jail for copying your employer's code and bringing it to a new employer or using it commercially. It's just not "theft".

Cripes. As if the FUD on the whole "it's theft! no, it's piracy!" wasn't already bad enough, this is going to make it worse. A bunch of people will start trading torrents willy-nilly and when they get sued, claim they read that it wasn't theft so they're fine.

Theaetetus: rev. dave: This is a good thing. I know people spend a lot of time on code, but it changes so much that something from 3 months ago is not useful in many places. having it be illegal opens the doors for companies to charge former employees with theft.
There are civil penalties for selling or having code anyway.

It is illegal, and you could still go to jail for copying your employer's code and bringing it to a new employer or using it commercially. It's just not "theft".

Cripes. As if the FUD on the whole "it's theft! no, it's piracy!" wasn't already bad enough, this is going to make it worse. A bunch of people will start trading torrents willy-nilly and when they get sued, claim they read that it wasn't theft so they're fine.

The problem is that organizations like RIAA took the copyright argument over a cliff with their ridiculous claims of loss.

ds_4815: Leeds: void main ( void )
{

long loop_variable;

for(loop_variable = 0; loop_variable {
printf("What the fark, 2nd Circuit Appeals Court??? \n");
}

}

}

Studying for a C++ exam and saw this; was afraid I'd finally cracked.

/Which I suppose is the first step to becoming a programmer

Yeah, Fark tosses tabs (and I think multiple blank lines) and the less than symbol gets interpreted as a tag. So code gets totally farked.

/Have written approx 3000 lines of C++ code in the last 2 days.
//Now off to write the design doc for the code I just wrote.
//Whoever came up with virtual inheritance, I want to thank you and then punch you in the face.

The "intellectual property" industry didn't exist 150 years ago.
There is no reason to believe it needs to exist 50 years from now.

If this is the case...

What constitutes "computer code"? I'd argue that media files are indeed computer code, as they contain instructions that tell the computer what to do, or in the case of media files, display/convert to audio.

In that case, RIAA/MPAA have a few problems..

Shazam999: Theaetetus: rev. dave: This is a good thing. I know people spend a lot of time on code, but it changes so much that something from 3 months ago is not useful in many places. having it be illegal opens the doors for companies to charge former employees with theft.
There are civil penalties for selling or having code anyway.

It is illegal, and you could still go to jail for copying your employer's code and bringing it to a new employer or using it commercially. It's just not "theft".

Cripes. As if the FUD on the whole "it's theft! no, it's piracy!" wasn't already bad enough, this is going to make it worse. A bunch of people will start trading torrents willy-nilly and when they get sued, claim they read that it wasn't theft so they're fine.

The problem is that organizations like RIAA took the copyright argument over a cliff with their ridiculous claims of loss.

Not to mention their whole "you wouldn't steal a car, would you?" propaganda.

I think that's the craziest part about this, though... You go digging through Slashdot or Fark threads about copyright infringement, and you find a ton of people saying "it's not theft! It's copyright infringement! Anyone calling it theft is a moran!"
Then this decision comes out saying "it's not theft (it's copyright infringement)," and those very same Slashdotters and Farkers are suddenly saying "durr, software is now free forever!!"
I mean, holy cripes... it's like they believe that because they were right once, they get to shove the whole topic over the Cliffs of Retarded.

This sort of puts everything into the Creative Commons' most strict license, i.e. copying is ok so long as no economic exploitation is taking place.
However, I see one major problem with this: this assumes that a copy has no value, that is, no economic value.
The value of "intellectual property", which is to say music or films or software (all of which are easily copyable in digital format) is accessed by the user when using it, and it provides its value that way. There is an exchange rate, should someone buy it initially, which is where the monetary value is prescribed. When listened to or viewed or whatever, the intrinsic value is still present, regardless of whether the version is an original or copy. But somehow there is no longer a value-exchange rate with money.
Money itself, paper money especially, is only valuable by a social contract - we agree on its value.
The value of music, film, software, is much more intrinsic, but somehow, even though that value is being accessed in the pirated versions, the pirates are willing to believe that it is valueless monetarily simply by being a copy - breaking another social contract.

I see a hypocrisy here: a pirate agrees on the cultural value of these items and uses them as such, but once accessed somehow disbelieves that there is a monetary value. This would be like taking somebody's currency and then claiming that it is only paper and therefore valueless, and then spending it!

jso2897: The "intellectual property" industry didn't exist 150 years ago.
There is no reason to believe it needs to exist 50 years from now.

The "intellectual property" industry has existed for almost two thousand years, and patents and copyrights have existed for almost 500. They were so important, in fact, that it's one of the few powers explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution, and the year after signing it, they were working on this country's Copyright Act and Patent Act. First U.S. patent was granted in 1790, dude.

Sean M: If this is the case...

What constitutes "computer code"? I'd argue that media files are indeed computer code, as they contain instructions that tell the computer what to do, or in the case of media files, display/convert to audio.

Certainly.

In that case, RIAA/MPAA have a few problems..

Only if they try to get prosecutors to file charges for theft when they're still in possession of the originals.

Honestly, this decision doesn't change anything and just confirms what we've been saying for years: copyright infringement isn't the same as stealing a car.

Theaetetus: Shazam999: Theaetetus: rev. dave: This is a good thing. I know people spend a lot of time on code, but it changes so much that something from 3 months ago is not useful in many places. having it be illegal opens the doors for companies to charge former employees with theft.
There are civil penalties for selling or having code anyway.

It is illegal, and you could still go to jail for copying your employer's code and bringing it to a new employer or using it commercially. It's just not "theft".

Cripes. As if the FUD on the whole "it's theft! no, it's piracy!" wasn't already bad enough, this is going to make it worse. A bunch of people will start trading torrents willy-nilly and when they get sued, claim they read that it wasn't theft so they're fine.

The problem is that organizations like RIAA took the copyright argument over a cliff with their ridiculous claims of loss.

Not to mention their whole "you wouldn't steal a car, would you?" propaganda.

I think that's the craziest part about this, though... You go digging through Slashdot or Fark threads about copyright infringement, and you find a ton of people saying "it's not theft! It's copyright infringement! Anyone calling it theft is a moran!"
Then this decision comes out saying "it's not theft (it's copyright infringement)," and those very same Slashdotters and Farkers are suddenly saying "durr, software is now free forever!!"
I mean, holy cripes... it's like they believe that because they were right once, they get to shove the whole topic over the Cliffs of Retarded.

Yeah, it's funny, ain't it? They're just trying to justify their behaviour, I guess. Better to pretend to be noble than confess to be a thief?

main()
{
printf("hello, world\n");
}

I've got copyright on this, biatches.

Shazam999:
Yeah, it's funny, ain't it? They're just trying to justify their behaviour, I guess. Better to pretend to be noble than confess to be a thief an infringer?

;)

Dude O Matic 5000: mjjt: We are in the process of trying to reconfigure ownership ideas and laws that were formed before digital copies became possible.

The issue the court decided was that the owner wasn't dispossessed of the original.

While the record industry tries to cling to an outmoded idea of tangible assets, more sophisticated creatives have realized that the issue is not so black and white.

This is a wall in my lounge

[i40.tinypic.com image 640x479]

The original of the triple painting is called As I Opened Fire and resides in a public art gallery in Amsterdam.

I would say that the existence of this 'copy' in no way reduces the value of the real thing. Even if I sold the copy, it is so obviously fake that it doesn't reduce the value of the real thing.

To me, this is morally legit, in that nobody is being deprived of anything.

The original was in Phoenix for a while. Went and saw it myself. Hand-painted half tone eh?

House paint acryllic. Total absence of ben-day dots.

MightyPez: Herbie555: I understand the arguments, and that because a copy of code doesn't deprive the "owner" of it's use, it can't really be stolen, but I still wish to hell that our legal system (and our language, for that matter) had the concept of a moral theft.

Yeah. Legislating morality. That always works out so well.

How do you legislate morality when the "legislature" is immoral?